Assessing Stories

The assessment framework came from the ground up – literally. Sitting with Reg, repeatedly, in circle, first on a classroom floor, then on a blanket in a tipi, and then while dancing – feet on the ground – in ceremony. I didn’t realize at the time I was learning how to see, how to assess stories and experiences from an oral knowledge system. I am still a learner and will be for the rest of my life and perhaps, with repetition, I will become more refined in the gift of seeing the teachings that stories enfold. This analysis process did not come from books, it came through the relationship I have with Reg, with language, and with land. Learning through the oral system is a different kind of listening; listening requires the interaction between my head, heart, body, and spirit (Archibald, 2008; Ermine, 1995; Ghostkeeper, 2007; Holmes, 2000; Meyer, 2013). Listening to stories to discern messages is not only an intellectual act, it requires the acknowledgement of your whole being in a symbiotic relationship with other beings, inclusive of the story itself, and the language that the story sits within.

 Language

Importance of Language

“When I talk about a worldview, when I talk about creation, when I talk about who are you are, where's your creation, you have the makings of that creation, you know who you are, the language is proof of that creation, so there isn't any difference, that's where I wanted to say from the worldview perspective, you speak from that worldview, than you are who you are” (Reg Crowshoe, personal communication, September 5, 2020)

In February 2020, as we packed up from a day of teaching together, I showed Reg the third perspective diagram (seen below). As a someone who makes sense of concepts through visual images, I designed the diagram based on my understandings of the teachings received from him during many circles with smudge. Looking upon the image and hearing my explanation, he replied, “the third perspective is also the language”. With an extremely perplexed facial expression, I responded: “yes of course!”. I walked away from that exchange feeling as if I knew nothing and questioning myself on why I did not catch that! More importantly, as I walked away, I was feeling discouraged, not by what Reg had said, but by knowing that I could not use language as a third perspective because I can only speak English. I felt hindered by my own limitation of not being able to speak Michif. My inability to speak my language is an enduring trauma and this interaction pointed to that in a very direct way. Speaking English limits me in expressing myself fully as a Michif woman. Over the years, I have tried to acquire the language of my people little by little. As a researcher, I acknowledge this limitation as I inquire about Métis experiences as I cannot fully ‘think’ through the stories as Michif.

“language reflects to the knowledge packages, which are stories, and those knowledge packages, I would say, are how you recognize the world and the environment. (Reg, Piikani Nation, personal communication, September 5, 2019).

Language has its own perspective and worldview. I have heard stories and concepts through the Blackfoot and Michif languages, both before and during the research gatherings. I am not a fluent Michif speaker, nor a reliable conversationalist, but I am a learner trying to decolonize my brain and body into thinking from my Michif worldview, a worldview that English cannot offer me. Not being a fluent speaker, I knew I had to depend on those older ones who can speak the language and allow me to experience the worldview through them. Being taught concepts through Blackfoot and Michif, I came into relationship with those ideas differently.

Third Perspective

“I feel your story” (Edmee)

“that question of what you struggled with, is how we would evaluate, as you move along, because the struggles come from here (points to chest) if we just gave you a test on a piece of paper about the photo, then it will all come from here (points to head) which that happens in school all the time, comes from here, but when we do the smudge and the question, then you’re testing from how you connect from the head and heart, then the evaluation is really evaluating from an oral context” (Reg)

One can listen to stories just to hear and other times one can listen what is being spoke to engage with the words to seek meaning for a question or challenge. The method of storytelling includes listener and the teller, each integral to generating significance from the story. The storyteller commits to the details and shares the important nuances of the story. The listener also has commitments to endure; “Listening is an emotional, spiritual, and physical act. It takes a huge emotional commitment to listen, to sort, to imagine the intent, to evaluate, to process and to seek the connection to the words offered so that remembering can be fair and just” (Maracle, 2015, p. 21). Both entities in the storytelling process have ethical obligations. The teller shares the story as it is known ensuring nothing has been altered or deleted. Moreover, the teller is responsible for stating personal lineage and their connection to the story. Obliged is the listener to listen intentionally, to care for the stories that are offered and to ascertain information that will respect the essence of the story.

I have been influenced by the stories, experiences, and energies of those around me since the beginning of the research. Assessing stories began as soon as I recruited individuals. Assessing narratives was not limited to the time when my data collection was completed but occurred simultaneously throughout. Questions that guide an oral knowledge system were in play the entire duration. In teaching with Reg, certain questions are exercised to assess the stories of student assignments, they include: how am I/they relating to the story? how is this informing who I/they are becoming and what I/they know? What are the struggles of both the listener and teller and in the story? How will I/they be a good relative and responsible to the story and the source of the story? In another way, we can relate these questions to the Creation story Reg shared with the research circle. Original emotion, thought, creation, and sound envelop these concepts. The struggle Creator was having with his emotion of lonesomeness, encouraged him to think about how to relate to his feelings thus deciding to act and create the Earth. How the students relay their story is their sound. Whether we use storying up or third perspective, both concepts induce a process that is derived from an oral systematic approach to knowledge acquisition. I was fortunate to previously practice applying assessment processes in my pedagogy however, the layers of this doctoral analysis were more robust and multidimensional as I had multiple perspectives to relate to and consider. Regardless, third perspective and storying-up have informed how I assess the narratives to derive meaning related to my research question.

The third perspective (Figure 1.) is a relationship and a knowledge spirit as articulated by Reg Crowshoe with smudge. The third perspective as a concept asserts that the listener and teller are engaging with other beings — the language and story. Moreover, the perspective as a being has its own agency and autonomy within the context of the interaction with the listener and the teller. The three do not collapse into one another yet inform each other and create knowledge that is then used for life purposes. As I engaged with the stories of the Métis kin, I engaged with the teller while ‘seeing’ their story as its own entity that held knowledge. This third perspective as story or language will house the emotion, thought, creation, and sound that will guide me in what to listen for; what are the Métis relatives feeling, thinking, acting, and saying within the story. As these four concepts interact in the story, I learning about the research question; what their experiences are telling me is my role, as the listener, too discern. Having a relationship with the third perspective, with the knowledge spirit, the listener has the opportunity to peel back the layers of the stories to see what is beneath and how they are mirrored (Maracle, 2015). Moreover, the third perspective is generative in that the story that the teller and listener create together become a separate third perspective; the third perspective is always being created. For example, referring back to aachimooshtowihk and storying up the third perspective is included in the storying up process and through aachimooshtowihk, truth sharing, and circumambulating the stories through language, we are also creating a different third perspective. The process of the third perspective is generative as each time we enter into the triadic relationship, more stories will be created. Collective truthing occurs when I engage with each kin’s story individually while also hearing the engagement of the kin together — I am looking at what third perspective we are creating together and then what that collective third perspective is teaching me. Through this, narratives culminate and form patterns thus becoming central in meaning making.

With patterns revealed, representing and documenting the inquiry had to be decided. Relying on the third perspective to provide a lens for me to ‘see’ the stories as their own beings with knowledge, I then had to discern the stories and “observe looking for relationships between various things in it. That is to say, everything in the natural world has relationships with every other thing and the total set of relationships makes up the natural world as we experience it” (Deloria, 1999, p.34). The common adage associated with Indigenous worldviews is, “all my relations”, or “we are all related”. A Michif phrase, wahkohtowin, reflects “all my relations in creation”. Looking to this for assistance, I saw that the patterns revealed could be situated within this philosophy thus this was chosen to represent our collective story that you will read/see in the Wisdom sections. I wanted to ensure that I assembled the stories in relational ways and to assert that they are not segregated from each other but are dependent on each other to understand the fuller story of our inquiry.

kaakiihtwaamaan itootamihk waapamishoon aan wiichaytoowuk (we are practice reflected in relationship)

As articulated above, stories are beings, they are their own entities. Recognizing wisdoms from stories, prompts one to see all entities within a circle of universal relationships. In a published article, I articulate this as “ni kaakiihtwaamaan itootamihk waapamishoon aan mii wiichaytoowuk ‘I am practice reflected in relationships’…[which] means that all my interactions are alive, with beings, and provide understandings within specific contexts” (Bouvier, 2019, p. 35). A slightly differnent phrase, kaakiihtwaamaan itootamihk waapamishoon aan wiichaytoowuk, expresses that we are practice reflected in relationships. Willie Ermine (1995) articulates this as the task of Indigenous education, “The accumulation and synthesis of insights and tribal understandings acquired through inwardness, and the juxtaposition of knowledge on the physical plane as culture and community” (p. 105). Therefore, the contexts in which we practice are cyclical and both internal and external; they spiral outward from the self, and circle to include the family, community, earth, cosmos, and creation (Graveline, 1998). Métis scholar, Brenda MacDougall (2010), expresses wahkootowin, “In short, this world- view, wahkootowin, is predicated upon a specific Aboriginal notion and definition of family as a broadly conceived sense of relatedness with all beings, human and non-human, living and dead, physical and spiritual (p. 3). As you will see in the Wisdom sections, this sensibility guided the assemblage of our stories.